Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by charlizd

So what exactly is the problem here? because the game is not catering to the OP's needs it needs to have a pointless thread stating it is carebear because again it is not catering to there needs? People who have backed this game know what they are backing and if they don't then they need to learn to read.

Personally i think SC is doing so well not because it has some risk to PvP but because it is a damn nice looking game, it will have it's crowd of ppl who like it just like SotA.

Again tho i am unsure what the goal of this thread is, is it to try and derail ppl for wanting to play it? is it to try and enlighten peopl eot the fact that it is not a FFA PVP game? what is the point. If people want to know what it is about i am sure they can get off there fat asses and go check for themselves without the OP seemingly just trolling the game.

I believe it is the OP just, what you said begins with T word cos if I say it, I get banned for 48hrs. Thats all.

Star Citizen with FFA PvP and full loot seem to do pretty well, dont you agree?

There will be non-consensual PvP and full loot in Star Citizen and it seem to do alot better then Shroud of the Avatar.

How could that be?

Yes in fact I bought a $65 package few days ago, I am not alergic to PvP.............

But if you know about the game, you know that there are solid counter weights to its PvP, you don't lose your ship, you can insure all your equipment and cargo.............. and there are safe zones.

PvP in SC is similar to EvE which I played for 2 years.

Both EvE and SC PvP fall under the Carebear tag based on your standards.

You want the Full PvP with no rules and no safeguards (UO pre-Trammel and Darkfall)..........that is never going to work on a large scale, that's very niche.

Yes insurance and full loot. You can board and kill the crew and steal there ship and cargo.

There are no complete safe zones just some that are safer then others.

Full loot and non-consensual PvP is good enough for me. That is something we will never see in SotA.

There are no safe zones in EVE either, yet if you are careful you will practically never get into PvP if you don't want to. I expect it to work pretty much the same in SC. But yeah, at least the risk vs. reward will probably be there in SC, in that the most lucrative areas are also less safe, and vice versa.

We don't know yet how PvP will be handled in SotA, but it's fairly safe assumption it will not be like UO used to be (small safe zones, risk everything beyond those). I'd like to see some form of risk vs. reward implemented, but players who don't like PvP should never be forced to be PvP. The might be encouraged to risk PvP, but not forced. It just doesn't work.

You should realize that pre-trammel UO doesn't work anymore. In fact, looking at what happened to Felucca after Trammel was introduced pretty much should tell you straight away what the majority of people want. They want to be able to decide when and where to PvP, including not at all, if that's their preference.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that when you speak of risk vs. reward, you're requesting for features that allow you to attack completely unprepared opponents, therefore reducing your own risk to a minimum. Who's the carebear here? :)

If you enter zones that isnt safe you better be prepared.

I played UO from beta and just about all other MMO games with non-consensual PvP in one of the most PvP successful guilds of all time and we usually fight outnumbered so dont put labels on someone you dont know.

And for the 1000 time, trammel didnt ruin felucca, at least on Europe shard, it was just as good if not better after trammel was introduced. Whta ruined UO was Age of Shadows that turned UO into a WoW game, yes it was not the PK:s that destroyed UO it was making UO a themepark game. Pk:s living under statloss was a minor problem cause they were very few cause these harsh penalties.

No I don't know you, but neither do you know me and yet you keep flinging that carebear name around. Trammel cleared Felucca from all the sheep and only the wolves were left. It was a graveyard compared to what it was pre-trammel. I'm glad that you could still find your enjoyment there, against other players who were also prepared to PvP. I know a ton of people who were absolutely pissed by the fact their easy prey was gone.

I also agree that Age of Shadows destroyed UO. PK's did not destroy UO, but I'm willing to bet they would have, eventually, if Trammel was not introduced. Guess we will never know for sure, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. How many successfull FFA full loot games have we got since UO?

Carebear is a good name for all PvE players.

You called me a carebear without knowing me nor my playstyle, huge difference, you made it personal.

I played felluca after trammel and it was nothing like a graveyard, it was more populated then before trammel, I was there. Were you there?

That felucca was so unpopulated after trammel is a common lie carebears uses to point finger on how unsuccessful UO was during the non-consensual era and that trammel saved the game. Trammel didnt destroy anything in felucca, the Europe server was more populated then ever and it was actually the best time i had in UO.

My guild were fighting similar players in chaos/order/factions or we killed PK:s. We often helped new players out when we had the time since we knew that would be good for the game in the long run. So you see i were never the griefing asshole so many carebears fear getting into their game. I really despise the kind of players that seek out the weak, it only make themself weak. We gave them some playerjustice and often it worked very well when they realized there is some better players arround that wont accept my griefing playstyle.

Playerjustice is better then doing it like SotA are doing it. Consensual PvP will remove alot of potential players from the game.

I never saw PK:s as a hard problem after statloss was introduced. They could have made the penalties even worse but instead developers chickened out and created trammel and a split population.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by charlizd

So what exactly is the problem here? because the game is not catering to the OP's needs it needs to have a pointless thread stating it is carebear because again it is not catering to there needs? People who have backed this game know what they are backing and if they don't then they need to learn to read.

Personally i think SC is doing so well not because it has some risk to PvP but because it is a damn nice looking game, it will have it's crowd of ppl who like it just like SotA.

Again tho i am unsure what the goal of this thread is, is it to try and derail ppl for wanting to play it? is it to try and enlighten peopl eot the fact that it is not a FFA PVP game? what is the point. If people want to know what it is about i am sure they can get off there fat asses and go check for themselves without the OP seemingly just trolling the game.

Very little were known about the PvP during kickstarter. Non-consensual PvP for example were mentioned. I believed that PvP would be close to UO when i read up on the game during kickstarter.

Today that is out of the question and reason for that is carebears over at SotA forums jump every PvP thread and want to make consequences less harsh, playerskill less demanding, no full loot and on and on and on. No risk vs reward.

Since PvP isnt set in stone many will try to influence developers to create a game that fit them like a glove.

That is what is happening with SotA, it is going more and more carebear as i see it. PvP will most likely be a carebear version of PvP. If im wrong then i gladly take back the carebear status i have given the game.

Here is a thread where carebear players do their best to influence developers not to give the hardcore PvP players what they want even though they already have their gamestyle in the game secured -

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by charlizd

So what exactly is the problem here? because the game is not catering to the OP's needs it needs to have a pointless thread stating it is carebear because again it is not catering to there needs? People who have backed this game know what they are backing and if they don't then they need to learn to read.

Personally i think SC is doing so well not because it has some risk to PvP but because it is a damn nice looking game, it will have it's crowd of ppl who like it just like SotA.

Again tho i am unsure what the goal of this thread is, is it to try and derail ppl for wanting to play it? is it to try and enlighten peopl eot the fact that it is not a FFA PVP game? what is the point. If people want to know what it is about i am sure they can get off there fat asses and go check for themselves without the OP seemingly just trolling the game.

Very little were known about the PvP during kickstarter. Non-consensual PvP for example were mentioned. I believed that PvP would be close to UO when i read up on the game during kickstarter.

Today that is out of the question and reason for that is carebears over at SotA forums jump every PvP thread and want to make consequences less harsh, playerskill less demanding, no full loot and on and on and on. No risk vs reward.

Since PvP isnt set in stone many will try to influence developers to create a game that fit them like a glove.

That is what is happening with SotA, it is going more and more carebear as i see it. PvP will most likely be a carebear version of PvP. If im wrong then i gladly take back the carebear status i have given the game.

Here is a thread where carebear players do their best to influence developers not to give the hardcore PvP players what they want even though they already have their gamestyle in the game secured -

Yeah, you should go back and read that thread now also. It has already cleared up some of what you are speaking of. The person who you quoted before has actually said that when people use The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(tm) to get PvP then they should be ready for the harsh results.

You have to remember, not everyone has the free time or the will to deal with a high volume of forum posting. Things can be lost in translation as well, as with MagiK's post being taken out of context.

More of the PvP players there are understanding of the effects of PvP after using the The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(tm) to initiate the PvP than you think.

Though, I still dont know why you just don't post over there, rather than bringing all your SotA issues here. It isnt going to help here, go over to that thread and post your ideas / concerns man. Unless you already are, I dont knwo what your SotA nick is. CaptainJackSparrow?

Report this post

We try so hard to incorporate reallife and realism into mmorpgs, yet, the thing the entire earth is evolving around is PVP.

I praise the day, we get an adventure mmo, where u claim what u kill.

Incorporate real life and the entire earth is evolving around PvP, and claiming what you kill is realistic? I dunno, I haven't PVP'd a person in real life in like, 16 years, so I wouldn't say my real life revolves around real PvP. And certainly I never killed anyone in real life, either. I hear you can go to jail for life or worse for that sort of thing.

Report this post

You called me a carebear without knowing me nor my playstyle, huge difference, you made it personal.

I played felluca after trammel and it was nothing like a graveyard, it was more populated then before trammel, I was there. Were you there?

That felucca was so unpopulated after trammel is a common lie carebears uses to point finger on how unsuccessful UO was during the non-consensual era and that trammel saved the game. Trammel didnt destroy anything in felucca, the Europe server was more populated then ever and it was actually the best time i had in UO.

My guild were fighting similar players in chaos/order/factions or we killed PK:s. We often helped new players out when we had the time since we knew that would be good for the game in the long run. So you see i were never the griefing asshole so many carebears fear getting into their game. I really despise the kind of players that seek out the weak, it only make themself weak. We gave them some playerjustice and often it worked very well when they realized there is some better players arround that wont accept my griefing playstyle.

Playerjustice is better then doing it like SotA are doing it. Consensual PvP will remove alot of potential players from the game.

I never saw PK:s as a hard problem after statloss was introduced. They could have made the penalties even worse but instead developers chickened out and created trammel and a split population.

Yes I was there. Obviously didn't spend as much time in Felucca as I was busy RPing in the RP communities after they migrated to Trammel. Granted right after Trammel was introduced there might be more traffic in Felucca, but once everyone managed to settle on Trammel side I could run through half the continent without seeing as much as one red in Felucca. I don't know where the hell you all were, then.

Glad to hear you were not one of those griefers, but you know it didn't take many of them to ruin the experience for dozens of "carebear". It's not difficult for a developer to calculate "Hey if we remove this one griefer's ability to grief, we will lose one account and keep twelve." Not exactly rocket science.

The same thing with SotA. By making PvP consent-only you lose X number of potential players, but gain X+N number of potential players, where N is undoubtly bigger than or at least equal to 0.

You never saw PKs as a hard problem since you were one of those who were enjoying PvP and were always prepared for it. I can tell you a lot of people did see it as a hard problem. I got ganked several times in Spiritwood (I think that was the RP town name located west of Skara Brae) when chilling out in the tavern with a few other RPs. The PKs rode in so fast I couldn't even finish a sentence before we were all lying down, dead. By the time the "player justice" arrived, they were long gone with all our stuff, valuable or not.

Again, I ask you to show me one successful FFA Full Loot PvP MMO since UO. Just one.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

FYI, calling people carebears is a bit, well stupid. The term is thrown around a lot and many of its 'excuses' for it tends to sound more so like someone was looking to 'grief' or 'kill the weaker and cash in on them', you know the type of player who rather the big guy butchers the little guy and pretending it takes skill. Yes, we all know thats what happens and how players with that 'carebear' mentality (at least a good majority who cry about things being imbalanced towards established players). And yes, players know the supposed 'skill' you claim for the system is actually a lie as skill plays very little part in such a system.

None the less, as far as I know much of these 'negatives' as you claim had been stated in the kickstarter to begin with. While I don't agree with everything, it was put up and mentioned.

Report this post

Important thread so that my old UO hardcore PvP friends dont misplace their money.

I thought that Richard Garriott would be the guarantee to guide this game towards a less trammel influenced gameplay.

But i was wrong.

In Shroud of the Avatar there wont be any non-consensual risk vs reward gameplay, no consequences. Full loot seem to be out of the window cause the carebears said so.

PvP will be a cardgame where cards pop up on your screen randomly and you have to choose one of these cards. You cant cast the spell that you wanted to cast. Developers call this a skillful PvP system. I call it giving in to the players that seek easy mode PvP. There is even talk about making PvP turn based.

Report this post

Important thread so that my old UO hardcore PvP friends dont misplace their money.

I thought that Richard Garriott would be the guarantee to guide this game towards a less trammel influenced gameplay.

But i was wrong.

In Shroud of the Avatar there wont be any non-consensual risk vs reward gameplay, no consequences. Full loot seem to be out of the window cause the carebears said so.

PvP will be a cardgame where cards pop up on your screen randomly and you have to choose one of these cards. You cant cast the spell that you wanted to cast. Developers call this a skillful PvP system. I call it giving in to the players that seek easy mode PvP. There is even talk about making PvP turn based.

So if you seek the next hardcore oldschool UO game just move along cause this aint it.

Maybe its time to step aside, the Care bears rules the gaming industry..Welcome to the New Generation!! Old fart gaming generation is dead..

Nah. They just need to either accept the fact they'll never again freely farm the sheep who can't fight back, or up their game and play games that have consent-only PvP. You know, where you actually only fight people who are prepared and willing to fight back.

It's a shocking thought to a lot of these "hardcore" PKs.

OP, you claim you weren't a griefer and you only fought other PKs. Can you tell me why you can't just play any of the games that offer consensual PvP, where you will only meet other PKs on the battlefield?

Report this post

Important thread so that my old UO hardcore PvP friends dont misplace their money.

I thought that Richard Garriott would be the guarantee to guide this game towards a less trammel influenced gameplay.

But i was wrong.

In Shroud of the Avatar there wont be any non-consensual risk vs reward gameplay, no consequences. Full loot seem to be out of the window cause the carebears said so.

PvP will be a cardgame where cards pop up on your screen randomly and you have to choose one of these cards. You cant cast the spell that you wanted to cast. Developers call this a skillful PvP system. I call it giving in to the players that seek easy mode PvP. There is even talk about making PvP turn based.

So if you seek the next hardcore oldschool UO game just move along cause this aint it.

Maybe its time to step aside, the Care bears rules the gaming industry..Welcome to the New Generation!! Old fart gaming generation is dead..

Nah. They just need to either accept the fact they'll never again freely farm the sheep who can't fight back, or up their game and play games that have consent-only PvP. You know, where you actually only fight people who are prepared and willing to fight back.

It's a shocking thought to a lot of these "hardcore" PKs.

OP, you claim you weren't a griefer and you only fought other PKs. Can you tell me why you can't just play any of the games that offer consensual PvP, where you will only meet other PKs on the battlefield?

Agree..

I am sure if the playing field is level out..No uber gear and no skills and no level the op be crying because he cant gank anyone or he dies to often..I seen a lot of pk ganker cry in Guild wars because they could not go around and pawn anyone..Makes me wonder who the care bear?

Report this post

Important thread so that my old UO hardcore PvP friends dont misplace their money.

I thought that Richard Garriott would be the guarantee to guide this game towards a less trammel influenced gameplay.

But i was wrong.

In Shroud of the Avatar there wont be any non-consensual risk vs reward gameplay, no consequences. Full loot seem to be out of the window cause the carebears said so.

PvP will be a cardgame where cards pop up on your screen randomly and you have to choose one of these cards. You cant cast the spell that you wanted to cast. Developers call this a skillful PvP system. I call it giving in to the players that seek easy mode PvP. There is even talk about making PvP turn based.

So if you seek the next hardcore oldschool UO game just move along cause this aint it.

Maybe its time to step aside, the Care bears rules the gaming industry..Welcome to the New Generation!! Old fart gaming generation is dead..

OP, you claim you weren't a griefer and you only fought other PKs. Can you tell me why you can't just play any of the games that offer consensual PvP, where you will only meet other PKs on the battlefield?

It is not just about non-consensual PvP. It is also about what type of consensual PvP we will see in SotA.

I think i quote some wise men over at SotA forums cause they explain the problem well -

CaptainJackSparrow point out one of the main problems developers have to solve in these lines and i quote -

" I think I can answer that now, which was something I didn't catch before. Ok this is how it goes. Right now there are crafter RP types sitting on the fence, maybe they wanna try PvP, maybe they do want to PvP but the problem is they do not want to take risks nor lose their valuable crafter RP type stuffs to us rabid maniacs foaming at the mouth to get their robes and chairs and stuff.

So without the color, basically they want to PvP but in a perfectly safe sterile environment, so by going into OPO and having PvP it is "forcing" them into PvP(which is full loot) they don't want. This is also a very large issue for PvP players, as when we go into PvP we really want full loot, hard core rules for hard core gamers should apply when we go for it.

Two types of PvP players mixed into both the Crafter/RP group and the Rabid/PK group, and this is where the sweet spot will be for the devs to program for. I do NOT envy them, it seems no matter what they end up doing, it is going to cause issues "

Many dont understand what non-consensual PvP is. It is not griefing, it is as GimmeUOPls write on the SotA board and i quote -

" That right there. Right there. It is so painfully clear that you just simply do not get it. Nonconsentual PvP does not equal griefing, it equals an actual role playing game with villains and heros.

People have their option for OPO PvE, why can't we have a seperate option for OPO PvP with seperate characters? How would that force anything on anyone? In my very short time here the only people I see that are trying to infringe on anyone's playstyle are those that are against a PvP version, and I see all of them spreading misinformation saying that somehow we want everyone to be forced to PvP and that nonconsentual pvp is automatically griefing (clearly you don't understand what defines griefing. Clearly.).

NO, we just want it seperate and not just with an on/off switch, for those of us that love the incredible depth that good/evil gives to an RPG when it is put into the hands of the players. "

Solving griefing in non-consensual PvP can be done with a harsh ruleset for them. In UO statloss removed most PK:s and lets take it abit further and you wont see griefing as the one we saw in pre-trammel.

Report this post

Important thread so that my old UO hardcore PvP friends dont misplace their money.

I thought that Richard Garriott would be the guarantee to guide this game towards a less trammel influenced gameplay.

But i was wrong.

In Shroud of the Avatar there wont be any non-consensual risk vs reward gameplay, no consequences. Full loot seem to be out of the window cause the carebears said so.

PvP will be a cardgame where cards pop up on your screen randomly and you have to choose one of these cards. You cant cast the spell that you wanted to cast. Developers call this a skillful PvP system. I call it giving in to the players that seek easy mode PvP. There is even talk about making PvP turn based.

So if you seek the next hardcore oldschool UO game just move along cause this aint it.

Maybe its time to step aside, the Care bears rules the gaming industry..Welcome to the New Generation!! Old fart gaming generation is dead..

Nah. They just need to either accept the fact they'll never again freely farm the sheep who can't fight back, or up their game and play games that have consent-only PvP. You know, where you actually only fight people who are prepared and willing to fight back.

It's a shocking thought to a lot of these "hardcore" PKs.

OP, you claim you weren't a griefer and you only fought other PKs. Can you tell me why you can't just play any of the games that offer consensual PvP, where you will only meet other PKs on the battlefield?

Agree..

I am sure if the playing field is level out..No uber gear and no skills and no level the op be crying because he cant gank anyone or he dies to often..I seen a lot of pk ganker cry in Guild wars because they could not go around and pawn anyone..Makes me wonder who the care bear?

You called me a carebear without knowing me nor my playstyle, huge difference, you made it personal.

I played felluca after trammel and it was nothing like a graveyard, it was more populated then before trammel, I was there. Were you there?

That felucca was so unpopulated after trammel is a common lie carebears uses to point finger on how unsuccessful UO was during the non-consensual era and that trammel saved the game. Trammel didnt destroy anything in felucca, the Europe server was more populated then ever and it was actually the best time i had in UO.

My guild were fighting similar players in chaos/order/factions or we killed PK:s. We often helped new players out when we had the time since we knew that would be good for the game in the long run. So you see i were never the griefing asshole so many carebears fear getting into their game. I really despise the kind of players that seek out the weak, it only make themself weak. We gave them some playerjustice and often it worked very well when they realized there is some better players arround that wont accept my griefing playstyle.

Playerjustice is better then doing it like SotA are doing it. Consensual PvP will remove alot of potential players from the game.

I never saw PK:s as a hard problem after statloss was introduced. They could have made the penalties even worse but instead developers chickened out and created trammel and a split population.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by InsaneMembrane

Originally posted by charlizd

So what exactly is the problem here? because the game is not catering to the OP's needs it needs to have a pointless thread stating it is carebear because again it is not catering to there needs? People who have backed this game know what they are backing and if they don't then they need to learn to read.

Personally i think SC is doing so well not because it has some risk to PvP but because it is a damn nice looking game, it will have it's crowd of ppl who like it just like SotA.

Again tho i am unsure what the goal of this thread is, is it to try and derail ppl for wanting to play it? is it to try and enlighten peopl eot the fact that it is not a FFA PVP game? what is the point. If people want to know what it is about i am sure they can get off there fat asses and go check for themselves without the OP seemingly just trolling the game.

I believe it is the OP just, what you said begins with T word cos if I say it, I get banned for 48hrs. Thats all.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Today that is out of the question and reason for that is carebears over at SotA forums jump every PvP thread and want to make consequences less harsh, playerskill less demanding, no full loot and on and on and on. No risk vs reward.

Have you ever been to a party and you can't figure out why nobody wants to talk to you? You probably have. Let me help you with that, it IS you.

While I can appreciate how you want to play the game, there are a couple of very, VERY big factors that prevent developers from doing that. First, there are obviously more people, who also Kickstarted the project by the way, who would prefer less harsh PvP. Secondly, your absolute lack of respect for other players does NOTHING to help your cause. In fact, a developer would look at this thread and say, "Wow, this type of person is exactly what we DON'T want in our game." It's unfortunate that you've decided to represent the pro-PvP camp in such a negative light because it doesn't do anything except to cast a negative light on them. If you'd like to make the argument for non-consensual PvP, then do it with logical arguments and less name calling. Finally, you can't throw out a relatively accurate definition of what a "carebear" is and then, almost immediately afterwards, say that you just feel like all PvE players should be called carebears. Again, it doesn't help your argument, it just makes you look petty, like a little kid who didn't like how the game was being played so just started calling everyone names. We talk an awful lot about community on this forum and you've given a great example of how the MMO community has become rotten.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by syriinx

Yet OP can say carebear all he wants

No doubt. But I always compare the use of the word in discussions about mmo's as a variation of Godwin's Law. The one who uses the word has already lost the argument and the discussion from that moment on centers around that word instead of anything substantial, and drags on and on.

Report this post

You called me a carebear without knowing me nor my playstyle, huge difference, you made it personal.

In a previous thread, a PVPer objected to essentially being called a Sociopath in the Sota forum. Apparently, some of the people in that forum thought that was a good name for his style of play.

How do you feel about PVErs sticking derogatory names on *your* style of play? I’m sure they can come up with quite a few.

[mod edit]

That is not correct, again you are working on outdated information. The community manager FireLotus unbanned that word. And as I have already said, you'd have to understand why they attempted to ban it in the first place. Because people like me and you use it to troll crafters and RP players hard by calling them carebears, I mean that is the sole reason that term is here for.

Again, I please ask you very kindly with no sarcasm at all, and I am not trying to troll you either, I just want you to go and read and post your suggestions over at SotA instead of casting rocks from this forum.